I think I'm a part of the first generation of journalists to skip print media entirely, and I've learned a lot these last few years at Forbes. My work has appeared on TVOvermind, IGN, and most importantly, a segment on The Colbert Report at one point. Feel free to follow me on Twitter or on Facebook, write me on Facebook or just email at paultassi(at)gmail(dot)com. I'm also almost finished with my sci-fi novel series, The Earthborn Trilogy.

When is a Billion Not a Billion?

Yesterday, I wrote a piece commenting on the news that Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 beat its own predecessor’s record by selling $1B worth of copies in 15 days. Even if analysts are right and total lifetime sales might be down for the game, it’s still an undeniably impressive figure.

But is it? Some don’t seem to think so. Ben Kuchera of the Penny Arcade Report wrote an article detailing his disdain for how the gaming press handles stories like this one. He specifically mentioned my own piece, so today I felt the need to respond in a more cohesive form other than a lengthy Twitter argument. Here are some of his major points taking issue with my piece. The main premise of his article is that comparing video game returns to box office receipts is a useless metric.

“The real story is that more expensive products bring in more money when sold to a dedicated fan base that’s not price sensitive. But again, that doesn’t make a good headline. None of this tells us if the game is more or less successful in terms of unit sales or even profits than previous games. Forbes may say “it’s worth noting” that the game’s grosses compare favorably to Avatar, but the writer fails to give a single good reason we should note that fact.”

He also takes issue with the fact that I reiterate that Black Ops 2 took one less day to reach the billion dollar threshold than MW3.

“Other outlets are pointing out that it took Black Ops 2 one less day to gross $1 billion than Modern Warfare 3, while neglecting to point out that the most expensive version of Modern Warfare 3 was only $99.99, compared to the $179.99 version of Black Ops 2.”

Let’s examine these one at a time. The crux of his piece centers on the fact that though Avatar sold $1B worth of tickets in 17 days, and Black Ops 2 did it in 15, the comparison doesn’t matter because since video games are much more expensive, less people actually bought the product.

The thing is, how much does the specific unit total matter if an increased price can make up the difference? If ticket prices were set at $60 instead of $10, would studios care if sixfold fewer people showed up to the film? Not if the end totals worked out to be the same. A billion dollars, is in fact, a billion dollars. The movie may have a leg up in the “global reach” category of people who actually consumed the product, but it doesn’t matter if your car dealership sells 100 Fords or 5 Lamborghinis, so long as you’ve made the same amount of money, with similar profits.

Then what about profit? We’re only talking about gross here after all. Surely either Avatar or Black Ops 2 must have been more profitable for their respective companies? But Kuchera admits there’s no real way to know this.

“I’m going to frustrate you by saying I don’t know, and it would take an enormous effort to find out.”

He goes on to detail the additional complicating factors of ticket costs and theater and retailer cuts and DLC releases and DVD shelf life. And he’s right, the truth is that without incredibly specific numbers about types of units sold (standard or IMAX, regular or collector’s edition) or intimate knowledge of marketing budgets, there’s no way to know which one is more profitable. Both made an incredible amount of money for their creators, though I have a hard time believing that the massive production and marketing costs of Avatar were less than Black Ops 2′s.

Avatar had to invent technology that didn't even exist yet in the industry. Black Ops 2 uses a recycled engine.

But why is this even a debate? Why is it not in fact important to point out that a game is drawing in the same sort of returns as one of the most popular films in history? Just because exact profit margin can’t be empirically proven without privately held data, it doesn’t mean it’s not a story, and doesn’t mean it’s not important as evidence for the growth of the industry. Furthermore, it’s important to note that movies and video games are competing for the same entertainment dollars. One video game has to essentially be worth 5 or 6 movie tickets to the person purchasing it. It can be a choice between a night at the movies for a family, or they could just invest in a household copy of a new video game to share. To say those who buy games aren’t “price sensitive” is wrong. People know games are expensive, and have to sacrifice other items sometimes (like movies) to be able to afford them. That’s why these comparisons are important.

As to Kuchera’s second point, he claims that since there were pricier collector’s editions this time around, ie. ones that cost $180 rather than the standard $60 or the $99 package for Modern Warfare 3, that somehow this makes the tally less impressive. Tying it back to Avatar, he notes that those ticket sales were also boosted by IMAX and 3D pricing, making its haul equally scoff-worthy.

I fundamentally disagree with his premise here. As I mentioned in the original piece, it very well may be the case that sales of the game are down, and that’s something Activision needs to keep an eye on. But it’s wrong to say that because the games were likely sold at a higher average price, this billion dollar number somehow means less.

It’s an impressive achievement on its own if you manage to sell less games and still make more money. If you have a fanbase so loyal, you’re able to convince them that a special edition priced at $180 is worthwhile, you’re doing something right. The same goes for the Avatar example. Sure, 3D and IMAX boosted ticket prices, but you know what? The 3D was great. To many that saw it, it was a moviegoing experience that was actually worth 50% more than a regular film. And that’s why it’s the totals that matter more than how you got there. It may make for interesting data points, but it’s not the main story.

And in reality, sure, much of this is a beauty contest. Avatar isn’t really the highest grossing movie of all time. Adjusting for inflation, that’s likely to be Gone with the Wind forever. But does that mean it was dumb to write stories about Avatar eclipsing Titanic’s haul back when it happened? I don’t think so, unless you’re the type of person who gets joy going around to children’s birthday parties popping balloons. And when a game makes it to a billion dollars sold faster than any other, I don’t see what’s wrong with comparing it to other high-achieving media that have put up similar numbers, especially when both are competing for the time and money of similar audiences.

I’m no Call of Duty fanboy. I think the series is racked with issues, and Activision is struggling to keep up with their need to constantly set records and it’s starting to show. But that doesn’t mean I can’t give credit where it’s due, and I would applaud any game that was able to make that many sales in that amount of time, no matter the publisher.

I was confused by Kuchera’s reaction piece, and disappointed by his response on Twitter after the fact. But I stand by that post, and I stand by this one as well. A billion is a billion, and there’s no reason to roll your eyes at a game that sets that record, or mock those who dare view it as a noteworthy accomplishment for the medium.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I suspect that there’s more of an emotional reason for this than may initially be apparent. As you may recall, Ben Kuchera stood staunchly with Bioware and the gaming industry as opposed to the rather irritated consumers when Mass Effect 3′s ending was an initial disappointment, parroting the company line that gamers were “entitled” and “spoiled”.

Forbes, taking the side of the consumer, ended up being something of a populist hero for a time, and Mr. Kuchera ended up looking like a fool when Bioware eventually caved, which I imagine isn’t fun when you consider yourself some kind of great intellect about gaming and your opposition is a business magazine.

In short, between this borderline libel about you intentionally deceiving your readers with hype (which is rather rich coming from a corporate stooge of all people), and other rather passive-aggressive attacks, it’s pretty clear he’s just representing the classic foible of the tech industry, which is incredible arrogance and holding bitter, childish grudges with anyone who disagrees with you. I’m pleased you didn’t descend to his level and actually managed a very coherent and intelligent response. It was always apparent no deception was intended, and this just clarifies matters.

There could also be a ingrained inability or unwillingness to admit that games CAN be compared to films. Films are big serious business, where as games are for children…so how DARE you try to compare my ‘adult’ entertainment with your childish little games….

I think one reason that Forbes came out of the ME3 issue so well was that they never took this line. Instead they dealt, and indeed deal, with the gaming industry as a business like any other.

I fully admit to having the same initial thought as Ben Kuchera, “wow, who cares? games cost more”. I also thought the same of Avatar when it broke records. “Who cares? it costs more to see”

But after reading this response, I have to agree with Paul Tassi completely. What is the difference between selling 1 game that costs a billion dollars and selling millions of games at 60 dollars? They both add up to a billion dollars, Why does the number of products matter or the type of product? How does it make it any less interesting?

I am very glad to have read this Article Paul. I feel you have cleaned me of some unaware and unwanted snobbery.

A lot of people like to pick on Forbes gaming. Which is especially ridiculous because it’s the sum of a bunch of different voices, not some united editorial front (even if standards do exist).

In this case, I agree with the idea that regurgitating publisher talking points is to be avoided. Google “Black Ops II total sales” and you’ll get a long list of headlines that all ran the same mini-story based on the same marketing talking point.

This isn’t to say that something meaningful or interesting can’t be said about that talking point, only that the just how meaningful/interesting it will be has to be measured against the generally-to-be-avoided practice of becoming publicity for the entity being reported on.

And in this regard, Kuchera does is fair share of reporting commercial propoganda (that is, conveying a message from corporations to consumers without having critically mediated it in-between).

“A lot of people like to pick on Forbes gaming. Which is especially ridiculous because it’s the sum of a bunch of different voices, not some united editorial front (even if standards do exist).”

- I had this same thought when I read Kuchera’s Quote of

“Forbes may say “it’s worth noting” that the game’s grosses compare favorably to Avatar, but the writer fails to give a single good reason we should note that fact.”

I am guessing he doesn’t read Forbes as Erik, Dave and Paul put articles with differing opinions up regularly. Especially Dave and Erik lately. I have to say I enjoy Forbes the most because of this. All the writers seem to want to discuss gaming and provoke thought.

I think it also has to do with Call of Duty being a rather empty phenomenon based on marketing savvy mostly and Activision being a horrible company with some of the worst business practices in the industry: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252 that aren’t beyond comparing video games with toilet paper: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29010/Activision_COO_Tippl_Franchise_Fatigue_Is_An_Excuse.php

“When Tippl joined Activision in 2005, he brought with him several years of executive experience with highly-successful consumer goods company Procter & Gamble, which is home for products ranging from toilet paper to potato chips to laundry detergent. He still draws from that mass market experience.

“When people come up and tell me, ‘how can you possibly make another Call of Duty,’ I always tell them that I used to work for a company that every year had to figure out how to make a white shirt whiter,” Tippl said. “And [Procter & Gamble] have been doing that for 35 years with a product like Tide.”

He continued, “You’re telling me with all the opportunities we have, and the technologies and the content … and all the different stories, the characters that we can develop, that we can’t innovate on a franchise for 10 years? Give me a break. Then we’re just not doing our job.”

When you say that it is a “noteworthy accomplishment for the medium”, to some people it sounds like you’re talking about The BackStreet Boys or Justin Bieber being a “noteworthy accomplishment” to music or Dancing With The Stars and Big Brother (or whatever is “in” nowadays) being “noteworthy accomplishments” for TV. Sure they might have (had) some of the highest ratings and people probably know, but they’re not really interesting as such, don’t offer an inherent quality and are the same shit repeating pattern of crass commercialization without any depth year-in, year-out.

They’re selling, good for them and a point that one has to grudgingly accept, but publications don’t really have to offer themselves as mouthpieces for their PR, especially when there’s more interesting things to talk about.

As for his article, as far as one point regarding “cultural impact” goes, I think the amount of copies sold is more important than the amount of money made with a product. His second point about actual profits being obfuscated and not really knowing if they made more or less money with this game (for instance, there were placards everywhere around town when the game released) also has some merit.

You provide an interesting perspective and probably valid for some people. However, It is very hard for anything to remain this popular for this long.

Call of Duty Black Ops II is the 9th entry in the series (not including handhelds). The original game was released in 2003, the next in 2005, and a new one every year after that. Can you name any other product that has done this and not reach over saturation? The simple fact that each entry breaks the records of the last entry is mind boggling. At some point you have to believe that they are going to start failing, but so far they haven’t and I don’t know many cases such as this one.